On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 00:12:24 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 05:26:30PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > One possibility might be a new debugging option. We could add > > replacement time_after() and time_before() macros that also check > > whether the difference in times is beyond a certain threshold > > (maybe a day or week or so), and pop a printk or otherwise record > > info about it when one is detected? > > Makes sense. However it might be hard to get people to run kernels > with heavy debugging options for that long. > Good point. That would limit the usefulness. I also worry that these macros get used in sensitive places that might not be conducive to printk's. Plus, we'd have to worry about ratelimiting them since they could potentially pop often once you did hit the issue. I'm not sure there's much we can do other than good old-fashioned review. Identifying places where jiffies-based timestamps might live a long time is ultimately going to come down to understanding how they're used in the code. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
